Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
Lindy Mayfield
I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer (the z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred. When I was at GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a hardware guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he told me that the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always, but not too much suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. That's why they had to add speciality engines, etc. Well, that's how I remember it.
Just curious what other people think about this sort of stuff.
Kind regards,
Lindy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Blaicher, Chris
Chris Blaicher
Phone: 512-340-6154
Mobile: 512-627-3803
Roach, Dennis , N-GHG
I have found a few things I could not do:
Support custom hardware (no slots on the z box)
Share memory between two or more Linux images (LPAR or z/VM)
Promote binaries from z to x86.
Dennis Roach
GHG Corporation
Lockheed Martin Mission Services
Facilities Design and Operations Contract Strategic Technical Engineering NASA/JSC
Address:
2100 Space Park Drive
LM-15-4BH
Houston, Texas 77058
Mail:
P.O. Box 58487
Mail Code H4C
Houston, Texas 77258
Phone:
Voice: (281)336-5027
Cell: (713)591-1059
Fax: (281)336-5410
E-Mail: Dennis...@LMCo.COM
All opinions expressed by me are mine and may not agree with my employer or any person, company, or thing, living or dead, on or near this or any other planet, moon, asteroid, or other spatial object, natural or manufactured, since the beginning of time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
>
P S
> wrote:
> I read in z/Journal that one mainframe can host 1,500 Linux servers. What
> sort of mainframe can do this? How many CPU's would it take? How many
> CPU's are the maximum?
>
How long is a piece of string? How big are the servers? What are they doing?
The "1500" number is made up, but is in the ballpark for a biggish z10. If
you're actually interested in this, suggest you ask on LINUX-390 or IBMVM.
> I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer (the
> z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred. When I was at
> GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a
> hardware guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he
> told me that the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always,
> but not too much suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. That's why they had
> to add speciality engines, etc. Well, that's how I remember it.
>
"Supercomputer" was never a well-defined term, IMHO. It means "big". And of
course the T61 I'm typing this on outpowers a Cray 1 (well, maybe; not sure,
but you know what I mean), so it's a moving target.
As for WAS and Java and the like, that's why zAAPs exist. So I guess I don't
quite grok your point.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Chris_B...@BMC.COM (Blaicher, Chris) writes:
> I remember reading about someone putting a very large number of Linux
> systems on a z using z/VM. Their problem wasn't how many as it was
> the internet connection being large enough for all the traffic. It
> was a while ago, and things get fuzzy in the head, so maybe someone
> else can reference a more concrete source.
old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#62 VM (not VMS or <b>Virtual Machine</b>, the IBM sort)
reproducing part of post to vmesa-l mailing list ... 41,000 ... on
small(?) capped/test LPAR.
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I remember reading about someone putting a very large number of Linux
> systems on a z using z/VM. Their problem wasn't how many as it was
> the internet connection being large enough for all the traffic. It
> was a while ago, and things get fuzzy in the head, so maybe someone
> else can reference a more concrete source.
old post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#62 VM (not VMS or <b>Virtual Machine</b>, the IBM sort)
reproducing part of post to vmesa-l mailing list ... 41,000 ... on
small(?) capped/test LPAR.
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Harminc
> I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer (the z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred. �When I was at GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a hardware guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he told me that the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always, but not too much suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. �That's why they had to add speciality engines, etc. �Well, that's how I remember it.
>
> Just curious what other people think about this sort of stuff.
The "specialty engine" part is just so much marketing hype. As has
been discussed endlessly here, the current specialty engines are the
very same engines as all the others, but with different legal Ts & Cs
that make it impossible to run "traditional" workloads on them. IBM
marketing tries very hard, without actually saying so, to suggest that
these engines are different hardware that somehow make Java,Websphere,
Linux, DB2, or whatever run faster. It may well be that specialty
engines can save money under some conditions, and there's nothing
wrong with that, but it's annoying to hear so much borderline stuff
about them.
Of course IBM *could* put truly different engines in if they wanted
to, and there have been rumours for a long time about putting CBE
chips and such into System z boxes, but I don't believe it's happened
yet.
Tony H.
Mark Post
> I read in z/Journal that one mainframe can host 1,500 Linux servers. What
> sort of mainframe can do this? How many CPU's would it take? How many CPU's
> are the maximum?
As any discussion of capacity or performance requires, "it depends." You're not going to fit that much CPU-intensive workload onto any mainframe available today. You could fit that many 0-1% busy systems on a couple of IFLs. Real life workload is going to be somewhere in between (big surprise). I believe (without having found the person or persons that originated this number) that the 1,500 number came from extrapolating the "average CPU busy" of a modern Intel system to a full-blown z10 EC. As usual, marketing trumps technical details.
> I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer (the
> z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred.
Given that most supercomputers these days are clusters of hundreds/thousands of Intel or PPC boxes, no way. Mainframes are good, but they're not magic as we well know.
> When I was at
> GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a hardware
> guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he told me
> that the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always, but not
> too much suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. That's why they had to add
> speciality engines, etc. Well, that's how I remember it.
If that was indeed what he said, then he was confused. Specialty engines were introduced for sales/marketing/political reasons, not technical ones. IFLs, the original specialty engine, were created specifically so that customers could add Linux workloads to their existing mainframes, and not have the additional capacity bump up their z/OS software charges. That worked so well that zIIPs and zAAPs followed, but for z/OS only. (Linux systems don't "need" them because the pricing is different to start with.) It's not that CPs are "not well suited" for things like WAS, or DB2. It's because customers resisted buying more of them because of the increased software costs. If IBM were to replace all the zIIPs and zAAPs with standard engines, and your software costs didn't change, customers would be much better off since they would get the full use of the engines, and things would run just as well if not better. Of course, that's not going to happen, from all that we've seen o!
ver the years.
Mark Post
Ted MacNEIL
How do you know it's made up?
I have no idea regarding this size, but I cannot dismiss it, either.
I always suspect blanket statements like that one.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
August Carideo
we run 5 IFLS and just started moving servers over so we do not have a
number to give you yet
driving this is mostly Oracle licensing, for 100 servers you need 100
licenses, for 100 linux guests you need 1 IFL license
Mark Post
<mp...@NOVELL.COM
> To
Sent by: IBM IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Mainframe cc
Discussion List
<IBM-...@bama.ua Subject
.edu> Re: Mainframe running 1,500 Linux
servers?
11/17/2009 01:22
PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion List
<IBM-...@bama.ua
.edu>
Mark Post
> this is being answered on the wrong list, go to the VM or Linux, list
Actually, no it's not. The answer would have just as forthcoming on those lists, but fewer people would have benefited from the answer. The odds are that more people on this list are going to be "introduced" to Linux on System z than anywhere else. From what we've seen at SHARE, System z Expo, and here, at some point most shops are at least looking at Linux (and z/VM), if only to figure out if it can be ignored because it's not a good fit for them. In those shops, it's the z/OS guy/gal that is most likely to get tagged for that job.
That's the reason I (and a number of other people) subscribe to this list in the first place. We're not looking to learn more about z/OS (I already did that for 20+ years), but to be available to answer questions that come up here about Linux and z/VM. It's much better to receive a quick, accurate answer than to be told "go ask somewhere else" when we're all part of the same community. Now, more in depth questions should certainly go to those other lists, but high-level stuff like this is entirely appropriate here.
Staller, Allan
images could be started in an IFL using z/VM. IIRC, HW resources ran out
before the software architecture limits were reached. ISTR > 32k images
running concurrently (no useful work, just how many can be started).
As to Linux images doing useful work, the answer is "it depends".
HTH,
<SNIP>
I read in z/Journal that one mainframe can host 1,500 Linux servers.
What sort of mainframe can do this? How many CPU's would it take? How
many CPU's are the maximum?
I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer
(the z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred. When I
was at GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they
had a hardware guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down
it, and he told me that the mainframe is great for transactional
processing, as always, but not too much suited for WebSphere, Java
stuff, etc. That's why they had to add speciality engines, etc. Well,
that's how I remember it.
</SNIP>
Thompson, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:05 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
IIRC, an experiment was done a few years back to see how many Linux
images could be started in an IFL using z/VM. IIRC, HW resources ran out
before the software architecture limits were reached. ISTR > 32k images
running concurrently (no useful work, just how many can be started).
<SNIPPAGE>
Some months ago I was reading some tuning information. One of the things
that was pointed out, for z Linux under VM: LIMIT THE MEMORY. If you
have n Linux guests, and all have 6GB available to them, they will all
go for the 6GB. This could cause your z/VM system to have a serious AUX
shortage.
The reason given for this, and I see it happening on my own personal
machines, is that Linux will load all the stuff that it needs and then
will use as much memory as it can for caching and then it will start
using its swap (paging) files. So as I load applications, I notice the
cache numbers starting to drop. Once I get past a certain number, SWAP
starts being used.
Now, when I took one of those machines and added 2GB of memory, Linux
immediately gobbled it with a large area used for cache.
Given this, if your z Linux only requires 1GB, only give it 1GB and let
it use its swap files. The one article I read on this said that when
they did this, they gained back both available CPU and AUX space.
Regards,
Steve Thompson
-- Opinions expressed by this poster do not necessarily reflect those of
poster's employer --
P S
> >The "1500" number is made up, but is in the ballpark for a biggish z10.
>
> How do you know it's made up?
> I have no idea regarding this size, but I cannot dismiss it, either.
>
> I always suspect blanket statements like that one.
>
I know it's made up because (a) it's a very round number and (b) nobody is
running that much Linux on ONE z box anywhere, or if they are, they aren't
talking about it. This stuff isn't top secret: there are lots of sites
(Nationwide, Wells Fargo, and a few others come to mind) who are doing lots
of Linux on z. IBM is (or at least was, a year or two ago) driving to 1,000
Linux guests on a single box for testing purposes.
Once you get over some reasonable number of guests, it makes more sense to
add another box simply so you have more failover, etc. options, so again,
while 1500 is reasonable, it may never be realized -- 3x500 might be more
likely.
Tony Harminc
> this is being answered on the wrong list, go to the VM or Linux, list
Why - do you think that IBM-MAIN is for z/OS only? Certainly there are
many more readers on this list than those others.
Tony H.
August Carideo
being Linux runs under Z/VM more VM sys progs have been "tagged" for it
then Z/os guys
so all I meant was go to all three places not just here, didn't mean or say
this list was for Z/os ONLY
BTW I watch and post to 4 dif lists VM VSE Z/os and CICS
EOD from me on this that's for sure
Mark Post
<mp...@NOVELL.COM
> To
Sent by: IBM IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Mainframe cc
Discussion List
<IBM-...@bama.ua Subject
.edu> Re: Mainframe running 1,500 Linux
servers?
11/17/2009 01:54
PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe
Discussion List
<IBM-...@bama.ua
.edu>
Mark Post
-snip-
> being Linux runs under Z/VM more VM sys progs have been "tagged" for it
> then Z/os guys
You would be wrong about that. First of all, compared to the number of MVS systems programmers, there were comparatively few VM systems programmers to start with. Then, there aren't that many z/VM systems programmers left any more, largely the result of IBM's push to get customers off of VM before Linux came along. Most of them became something else, and haven't supported the platform for quite some time. Those that are still around, and are known to have VM skills do get tapped for new z/VM work, but that's not a big number. Based on my experience of the last 9 years, 90% of the people being tasked with implementing Linux (and z/VM) have no VM background, just MVS and z/OS.
Hal Merritt
So I believe that it was a fair and accurate statement that the MF was 'unsuited' for that type workload. I would note that IBM has gone a long way toward making the MF more suit-able.
Sorry about the puns.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Post
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:22 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
..snip
> When I was at
> GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a hardware
> guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he told me
> that the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always, but not
> too much suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. That's why they had to add
> speciality engines, etc. Well, that's how I remember it.
If that was indeed what he said, then he was confused. Specialty engines were introduced for sales/marketing/political reasons, not technical ones. IFLs, the original specialty engine, were created specifically so that customers could add Linux workloads to their existing mainframes, and not have the additional capacity bump up their z/OS software charges. That worked so well that zIIPs and zAAPs followed, but for z/OS only. (Linux systems don't "need" them because the pricing is different to start with.) It's not that CPs are "not well suited" for things like WAS, or DB2. It's because customers resisted buying more of them because of the increased software costs. If IBM were to replace all the zIIPs and zAAPs with standard engines, and your software costs didn't change, customers would be much better off since they would get the full use of the engines, and things would run just as well if not better. Of course, that's not going to happen, from all that we've seen o!
ver the years.
Mark Post
NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message,
together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.
Rich Smrcina
(Christmas, 1999). The experiment you are referring to was done shortly
after that.
Yeah... a 'few' years ago, but a *lot* has changed since then.
Staller, Allan wrote:
> IIRC, an experiment was done a few years back to see how many Linux
> images could be started in an IFL using z/VM. IIRC, HW resources ran out
> before the software architecture limits were reached. ISTR > 32k images
> running concurrently (no useful work, just how many can be started).
>
> As to Linux images doing useful work, the answer is "it depends".
>
> HTH,
>
--
Rich Smrcina
Phone: 414-491-6001
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina
Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY
R.S.
Dave Jones
under VM/ESA on a 9672 G5 (I think), done by Dr. David Boyes, Sine Nomine
Assoc. in the 2000-2001 time frame.
DJ
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:19:20 -0600, Rich Smrcina <rsmr...@WI.RR.COM> wrote:
>Linux on the mainframe was made available almost 10 years ago
>(Christmas, 1999). The experiment you are referring to was done shortly
>after that.
>
>Yeah... a 'few' years ago, but a *lot* has changed since then.
>
>Staller, Allan wrote:
>> IIRC, an experiment was done a few years back to see how many Linux
>> images could be started in an IFL using z/VM. IIRC, HW resources ran out
>> before the software architecture limits were reached. ISTR > 32k images
>> running concurrently (no useful work, just how many can be started).
>>
>> As to Linux images doing useful work, the answer is "it depends".
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>
>
>--
>Rich Smrcina
>Phone: 414-491-6001
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina
>
>Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
>WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY
>
howard...@cusys.edu
wrote:
>Technical folks don't buy hardware, sales/marketing/political folks do. Thus, the observation that the
>MF was 'unsuited' meant that the suits were not inclined to buy a MF for such. It was a poor business case.
So much of what IBM needs to do involves marketing. Changing the
upgrade paradigm helped, but there are a bunch more things it can do
to get mainframes to be considered when someone buys a Unix
application to run on a server farm.
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
11/17/2009
at 06:18 PM, Lindy Mayfield <lindy.m...@SSF.SAS.COM> said:
>I read in z/Journal that one mainframe can host 1,500 Linux servers.
The Devil is in the details. What is a server?
>What sort of mainframe can do this?
zSeries.
>How many CPU's would it take?
What is a server?
>How many CPU's are the maximum?
64; I'm not sure about the z11.
>I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer
>(the z10 to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred.
"Supercomputer" was always a marketing term rather than a technical term.
>When I was at GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city)
>they had a hardware guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe
>down it, and he told me that the mainframe is great for transactional
>processing, as always, but not too much suited for WebSphere, Java
>stuff, etc. That's why they had to add speciality engines, etc.
He was blowing smoke; the specialty engines are the same[1] as the regular
engines with different license terms. What was not suitable to those
workloads was IBM's pricing policies, and the specialty engines were just
an artificial way to segregate the workloads.
>Just curious what other people think about this sort of stuff.
The 1500 number may well be valid for I/O bound servers; it's way too high
for CPU bound servers.
[1] Except for the facility that let the software tell
which was which.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
on 11/17/2009
at 01:39 PM, August Carideo <August....@AVON.COM> said:
>this is being answered on the wrong list,
No; both zLinux and z/VM are on topic here..
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
11/17/2009
at 10:34 AM, "Roach, Dennis (N-GHG)" <dennis...@LMCO.COM> said:
>I have found a few things I could not do:
> Support custom hardware (no slots on the z box)
That's like saying that you can't expand an Intel system because there are
no FICON channels. Both platforms have expansion capabilities, and there's
a thriving market in 3rd party hardware for the zSeries.
> Promote binaries from z to x86.
Or from SPARK to x86. Or from iSeries to x86. That blade cuts both ways.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P S
shmuel+...@patriot.net <shmuel%2Bibm...@patriot.net>> wrote:
> <snip>
> >What sort of mainframe can do this?
>
> zSeries.
>
System z. zSeries is dead.
A. Harry Williams
>2009/11/17 Lindy Mayfield <lindy.m...@ssf.sas.com>:
>
>> I also read in z/Journal that the lines between a mainframe computer (the z10
>to be specific) and a super computer are being blurred. �When I was at
>GuideSHARE Europe two years ago (in Dresden, lovely city) they had a hardware
>guy there next to a z10 with the nice green stripe down it, and he told me that
>the mainframe is great for transactional processing, as always, but not too much
>suited for WebSphere, Java stuff, etc. �That's why they had to add speciality
>engines, etc. �Well, that's how I remember it.
>>
>> Just curious what other people think about this sort of stuff.
>
>The "specialty engine" part is just so much marketing hype. As has
>been discussed endlessly here, the current specialty engines are the
>very same engines as all the others, but with different legal Ts & Cs
>that make it impossible to run "traditional" workloads on them. IBM
>marketing tries very hard, without actually saying so, to suggest that
>these engines are different hardware that somehow make Java,Websphere,
>Linux, DB2, or whatever run faster. It may well be that specialty
>engines can save money under some conditions, and there's nothing
>wrong with that, but it's annoying to hear so much borderline stuff
>about them.
Actually, there is at least 1 technical difference between specialty
engines and GP engines. Specialty engines run at full speed, so you
may be able run more CPU intensive workload on a z10 IFL than a z10 GP.
This doesn't change the rest of Tony's point, but it is a technical
difference that can have impact.
/ahw
P S
> The "specialty engine" part is just so much marketing hype. As has
> been discussed endlessly here, the current specialty engines are the
> very same engines as all the others, but with different legal Ts & Cs
> that make it impossible to run "traditional" workloads on them. IBM
> marketing tries very hard, without actually saying so, to suggest that
> these engines are different hardware that somehow make Java,Websphere,
> Linux, DB2, or whatever run faster. It may well be that specialty
> engines can save money under some conditions, and there's nothing
> wrong with that, but it's annoying to hear so much borderline stuff
> about them.
>
> Of course IBM *could* put truly different engines in if they wanted
> to, and there have been rumours for a long time about putting CBE
> chips and such into System z boxes, but I don't believe it's happened
> yet.
>
Don't forget that the zAAP/zIIP/IFL microcode disables ONE diagnostic
instruction that z/OS uses during initialization, so it's (slightly) more
than T&Cs. I see this as a safety, so nobody can say "Gee, we didn't
realize", as they'd have to hack the z/OS IPL process to get it to work.
Which (as Harry notes) doesn't change your valid point.
As for CBE, IBM was talking up Haplon and CBE on z a while ago, but that
seems to have died down. Interesting.
Edward Jaffe
> As for CBE, IBM was talking up Haplon and CBE on z a while ago, but that
> seems to have died down. Interesting.
>
In his System z keynote address at SHARE in Austin, Karl Freund
described a hypothetical future machine in which non-z processor
"blades", mounted within the System z frame, would be available as
"accelerators" to applications running on the traditional System z
processors.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edj...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Paul Gilmartin
>
>In his System z keynote address at SHARE in Austin, Karl Freund
>described a hypothetical future machine in which non-z processor
>"blades", mounted within the System z frame, would be available as
>"accelerators" to applications running on the traditional System z
>processors.
>
-- gil
Edward Jaffe
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:47:40 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
>
>> In his System z keynote address at SHARE in Austin, Karl Freund
>> described a hypothetical future machine in which non-z processor
>> "blades", mounted within the System z frame, would be available as
>> "accelerators" to applications running on the traditional System z
>> processors.
>>
>>
> Like the cryptographic coprocessor?
>
There are conceptually similarities. But, "blades" are usually
fully-functional, complex computers with their own operating systems. I
don't believe that's true of crypto cards.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edj...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
R.S.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
edj...@PHOENIXSOFTWARE.COM (Edward Jaffe) writes:
> In his System z keynote address at SHARE in Austin, Karl Freund
> described a hypothetical future machine in which non-z processor
> "blades", mounted within the System z frame, would be available as
> "accelerators" to applications running on the traditional System z
> processors.
I have several papers that I wrote on the proposal from early 1985
... long-winded old post with reference:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#17 mainframe and microprocessor
other posts in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#15 Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#19 Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#20 Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#32 Mainframe running 1,500 Linux servers?
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
11/21/2009
at 09:12 AM, P S <zos...@GMAIL.COM> said:
>Don't forget that the zAAP/zIIP/IFL microcode disables ONE diagnostic
>instruction that z/OS uses during initialization, so it's (slightly) more
>than T&Cs.
That difference is simply a configuration item done to enforce the T&C;
the actual engines are still the same. That and the speed difference are
for marketing reasons, not technical.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P S
shmuel+...@patriot.net <shmuel%2Bibm...@patriot.net>> wrote:
> That difference is simply a configuration item done to enforce the T&C;
> the actual engines are still the same. That and the speed difference are
> for marketing reasons, not technical.
>
That was clear already. Either that or your point is opaque. What are you
trying to say?
P S
> As for CBE, IBM was talking up Haplon and CBE on z a while ago, but that
> seems to have died down. Interesting.
>
Ah, no wonder I couldn't find it: fading memory. It's Hoplon, not Haplon.
Lots of hits.